Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 167 (2023) 107789

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Dynamic damage characteristics of mudstone around hammer driven pile

and evaluation of pile bearing capacity
Jichao Yin a, b, Xiaoyu Bai a, b, *, Nan Yan a, b, Songkui Sang a, b, Lin Cui a, b, Junwei Liu a, b,
Mingyi Zhang a, b
a
School of Civil Engineering, Qingdao University of Technology, 777 Jialingjiang Road, Qingdao, Shandong, 266520, China
b
Cooperative Innovation Center of Engineering Construction and Safety in Shandong Blue Economic Zone, Qingdao University of Technology, Qingdao, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The bearing capacity of the driven pile in the mudstone bearing layer is consistently lower than the design value.
Driven pile In this paper, the uniaxial compression test, pile driving model test, and needle penetration test were carried out
Dynamic driving loads on the mudstone samples before and after driving, and the influence of driving on the mudstone around the pile
Mudstone around piles
was studied. Based on the test results, the pile-bearing capacity evaluation method was proposed, and a nu­
Uniaxial compression strength
merical simulation was carried out. The findings revealed that the mudstone around the field piles was damaged
Elastic modulus
Dynamic damage characteristics by hammer pile driving, and the strength and elastic modulus reduced by 28.2% and 41.40%, respectively. The
Bearing capacity damage range of mudstone caused by dynamic pile driving was noted as 2d (pile diameter). For area within
0~2d, 4 damage zones were defined every 0.5d. The strength of mudstone in four zones decreased by 66%,
40.5%, 17%, and 7%, and the elastic modulus decreased by 80.5%, 54.5%, 26.5%, and 11%, respectively. Be­
sides, the reduction factors of damaged zones were determined, and the evaluation method of bearing capacity of
mudstone considering damaged zones was proposed. The bearing capacity evaluated by this method was found
to be consistent with the measured value with a 10.5% difference in measured mean value, and the conventional
method overestimated the pile’s bearing capacity by 57.9%. In addition to providing a specific method for the
pile design and bearing capacity evaluation, this study clarified the dynamic damage characteristics of mudstone
after the pile driving process has been completed.

1. Introduction
Mudstone has complex mineral association and structural charac­
teristics [1], which leads to the mechanical properties of mudstone being
easily damaged under different loads. The mechanical properties of
mudstone change to varying degrees under different conditions of water,
temperature, and impact load. Mudstone is considered to have a strong
water absorption capacity [2], and its stiffness, uniaxial compression
strength, and elastic modulus tend to decrease after water absorption [3,
4]. The anti-deformation stability of mudstone at high and low tem­
peratures is reduced, and the uniaxial compression strength and elastic
modulus are adversely affected under such conditions [5,6]. The natural
structure of mudstone is damaged under impact load, and the compo­
sition and failure mode of mudstone are changed [7]. Since it is critical
during the design phase of the structure, the mechanical properties and
damage characteristics of mudstone under different disturbances have
got extra attention from scholars. Piles penetrated by jacking and
harmmer driving have different construction effects [8,9]. Different
dynamic responses are generated by piling in different soils [10]. In
order to properly design piles and assess the bearing capacity, it is sig­
nificant to comprehend the dynamic damage characteristics and me­
chanical properties of the mudstone surrounding it after the driving
process.
Axial loads are applied to the pile top through the pile hammer
falling from a specific height, and until the pile is driven, cyclic loads are
applied to the pile top through repeated hammering [11]. The rock and
soil around the pile generate a dynamic response under the
hammer-driving shock wave. The influence of the dynamic wave of pile
driving on the surrounding soil and the attenuation law of dynamic
wave has been confirmed by Ekanayake et al. [12] and Grizi et al. [13].
Pile driving can cause the soil around the pile to yield, resulting in large
deformation, which can damage adjacent structures and reduce the

* Corresponding author. School of Civil Engineering, Qingdao University of Technology, 777 Jialingjiang Road, Qingdao, Shandong, 266520, China.
E-mail addresses: yinjichao970904@163.com (J. Yin), baixiaoyu@qut.edu.cn (X. Bai), yannan0527@163.com (N. Yan), 18306426194@163.com (S. Sang),
cuilin@qut.edu.cn (L. Cui), zjuljw@126.com (J. Liu), zhangmingyi@qut.edu.cn (M. Zhang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2023.107789
Received 15 November 2022; Received in revised form 21 December 2022; Accepted 18 January 2023
Available online 27 January 2023
0267-7261/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Yin et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 167 (2023) 107789

anti-interference of the structure during an earthquake [14–16]. For and sampling location of the site are shown in Figs. 1 and 2.
cohesive soils, excess pore water pressure is generated after driving
[17]. Driving-induced pore water pressure gradually decreases over 2.1. Uniaxial compression test
time, and cohesive soil strength increases [18]. Besides, the bearing 单轴压缩试验
capacity of driven piles in clay soil increases with time, which has been The high-pressure and low-temperature hydrate static triaxial test
confirmed through field tests [10,19,20]. By analyzing 80 sets of field system (GDS-ETAS), which could perform a uniaxial compression test
test data of different soils and different pile types, Long et al. [21] without confining pressure (Fig. 3), was used in the tests, the maximum
confirmed that the bearing capacity of driven piles (wooden, steel, axial force was determined as 100 kN. Standard specimens with a
concrete, and PHC piles) in clay, silt, and sand increased within 100 diameter of 50 mm and a height of 100 mm were made from the
days, with the maximum increase by 5 times. However, mudstone is mudstone around piles obtained before and after driving in S1 and S2,
different from clay, silt, and sand; the impact load damages the and uniaxial compression strength comparative tests were performed.
mudstone structure, resulting in irreversible damage, and the strength The uniaxial compression strength and the mudstone’s elastic modulus
will not be restored by thixotropy. Besides, the damage degree of are positively correlated. Mudstones with various structural character­
mudstone’s mechanical properties under impact or cyclic load is rela­ istics and mineral assemblages have various associations, according to
tively large [22,23]. Huang et al. [24], who performed a grouting impact the findings of a previous study [27]. Based on the analysis of lithology 岩石学
test on the damaged mudstone, pointed out that the reinforced and structural characteristics of mudstone, the relationship between
mudstone had worse impact resistance and poor dynamic performance. uniaxial compression strength (UCS) and the elastic modulus (E) of
The bearing capacity remains constant after driving piles into the mudstone in the current study conforms to Eq. (1):
mudstone bearing layer. Following a static load test, it is revealed that
the bearing capacity is consistently lower than the designed value [25, E = 0.0707UCS1.582 (1)
26]. Numerous studies of pile driving on clay, silt, and sand and their
mixed layered soil foundation have been carried out, which the bearing where E represents the elastic modulus (GPa), and UCS depicts the
mechanism of driven piles in these soil foundations, along with the uniaxial compression strength (MPa). The UCS and E comparison of
change mechanism of soil around the piles have been clarified. How­ mudstone around the pile before and after driving is shown in Fig. 4.
ever, there are few works related to piles driven in the mudstone bearing It can be seen from Figs. 4 and 5 that the UCS and the E curves of the
layer. The mudstone’s dynamic damage properties and mechanical S2 mudstone were affected by driving lower than that of the S1 undis­
properties around the pile under dynamic driving loads are still unclear. turbed mudstone when before driving. The UCS of mudstone at the same
Therefore, the dynamic damage characteristics and mechanical depth decreased after driving, and the UCS of mudstone at 14.6 m, 14.9
properties of mudstone around piles under hammered driving loads
were investigated in this paper. To ascertain the impact of dynamic
driving on the mudstone around the pile, tests including the uniaxial
compression test, pile driving model test, and needle penetration test,
were performed on mudstone samples before and after driving. Based on
the test results, an evaluation method for the bearing capacity of the
driven pile considering the mudstone-damaged zone was proposed. The
numerical simulation of the static load test between the proposed
method and previous conventional methods (without considering the
mudstone-damaged zone) was carried out, and the field test results were
compared to verify the accuracy and feasibility of the proposed method.
The current research clarified the characteristics of mudstone damage
under dynamic driving loads, addressed the issue of mudstone-driven
pile bearing capacity being less than the design value. In addition, a
practical approach for driven pile structural design and bearing capacity
evaluation is presented.

2. Laboratory tests of mudstone

The mudstone samples for the laboratory tests were all taken from
the field test site of the driven pile. The 6 test piles (P1–P6) were all PHC
closed pipe piles with a diameter of 500 mm, and the strength grade was
C80. An 8.3 t pile hammer drove the piles, and the pile ends were located
in moderately weathered mudstone. The highest groundwater level of
the site is 3.50 m, and the annual variation range is 1–2 m. The XY-1A
drill rig was used for sampling, and drilling fluid was used. During the
test period, the mudstone at the site remained below the groundwater;
therefore, the drilling fluid had a minor impact on the mudstone. The
time interval between the first sampling (S1) and the second sampling
(S2) was 8 weeks. S1 was carried out at 0.69 m around the pile 4 weeks
before driving. After sampling, the boreholes of S1 were grout to elim­
inate the influence of the drill hole on the subsequent test. After the
grouting strength was stable in 4 weeks, and pile driving was performed.
After another 4 weeks, S2 was carried out at 0.1 m around the pile to
dissipate the excess pore water pressure caused by driving and restore
the thixotropy of the cohesive soil. To preserve the mudstone’s natural
position, the drilled samples were immediately wrapped in plastic wrap
and transported to the lab in an incubator. The stratigraphic distribution Fig. 1. Distribution of strata in sampling site.
恒温箱
2
J. Yin et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 167 (2023) 107789

Fig. 2. Sampling position (unit: mm).

Fig. 3. Uniaxial compressive strength test:(a) some samples; (b) sample

installation.

Fig. 5. Results of elastic modulus of specimen.

m, and 15.2 m decreased by 34.9%, 24.1%, and 6.2%. Similarly, the E of

Fig. 4. Results of uniaxial compressive strength test.
the mudstone at 14.6 m, 14.9 m, and 15.2 m decreased by 49.3%, 35.4%,
and 9.6%, respectively. The average UCS of S1 and S2 was noted as 1.56
MPa and 1.12 MPa, respectively. The E mean values of S1 and S2 were
0.145 GPa and 0.085 GPa, respectively. This revealed that the UCS of
mudstone around the pile decreased by 28.2% on average, and the
average loss of E was 41.40%. The pile end of the field test pile was
located at 15.0 m. The mudstone damage strength and elastic modulus at
the pile end (15.2 m) were found to be small, and the mudstone damage
is increases with depth under the pile end. The UCS and E of mudstone in
2d (1 m) under the pile end were damaged.
In conclusion, the test results confirmed the field driving damage to
the mudstone within 0.69 m around the pile. The average UCS damage
and E damage of the mudstone around the pile were noted as 28.2% and
41.40%, respectively. However, damage on the mudstone near the pile

3
J. Yin et al.
end was found to be minor. The subsequent pile driving model test and
needle penetration test must be performed to elucidate the damage
characteristics further.
2.2. Pile driving model test and needle penetration test (NPT)
Mudstone is easy to disturb while difficult to be prepared as a model
foundation like clay and sand. The pile driving test device based on the
undisturbed mudstone (drilled of S1) overcomes the difficulty of
mudstone in preparing the model foundation. The device comprises a
support platform, a hammer pile driver, a model pile, a model box, and a
fixed locator, as shown in Fig. 6. The test device is made of steel except
for the model pile. The model pile is made of aluminum, with an E of 72
GPa, a pile length of 200 mm, and a pile diameter of 11.3 mm. The
hammer weight is 2.5 kg, and the drop distance is 30 cm. The height of
the model box is 200 mm, and the diameter is 100 mm. The model box
adopts a splicing method to constrain the undisturbed mudstone, which
ensures that the mudstone remains intact during the disassembly of the
model box. After driving, the model box was removed in sections, the
mudstone sample was cut to obtain the cross-section with the specified
penetration, and the NPT was performed on the cross-section. Before
cutting the mudstone to obtain the cross-section, the model piles were
pulled out and the pile holes filled with gypsum to avoid collapsing the
holes. The undisturbed mudstone drilled by S1 was used in the pile
driving model test, with a diameter of about 90 mm and a height of 200
mm. M1-M8 samples from the same drilling hole were selected for the
test. Before driving, the needle penetration instrument was used to
measure the undisturbed strength of M1-M8, and the average value of
each sample was taken by multi-point test. The model pile was driven to
100 mm to stop the driving. Information on M1-M8 is presented in
Table 1. By penetrating the soft rock with a needle, the NPT may
determine the soft rock’s uniaxial compression strength without the
requirement to prepare the sample. The measuring points of NPT were
evenly distributed around the pile, and multiple measurement points
with the same distance around the pile on the same cross-section were
averaged. The influence range of the needle penetration test on the
microstructure of mudstone is 0.4 mm–1.0 mm [28]. To ensure the
authenticity and reliability of the results, the measuring point range
(2.5 mm, 5.0 mm) was determined according to previous research [28,
29], meeting the non-destructive requirement. Besides, the measuring
points that did not meet the test requirements should be removed for the
cross-section with a large damage degree after driving. The NPT and
NPT positions are illustrated in Figs. 7 and 8.
As can be seen from Table 1, the mudstone was significantly inho­
mogeneous, the undisturbed strength of M1-M8 differed considerably,
and the degree of failure of the samples after driving was different. The
cross-section obtained by M6 and M7 were complete, and the measuring
points meeting the requirements were continuous. The test results of
M6, M7, and the cross-section position are drawn in Fig. 9. Meanwhile,
to visually express the UCS changes, the cross-sectional UCS of 60 mm
penetration of M6 and M7 are drawn into stereo, as shown in Fig. 10. In
Fig. 6. Test device: (a) structural representation; (b) pile driving.
4
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 167 (2023) 107789
Table 1
Information of samples.
Sample name Sampling depth (m) (Undisturbed)UCS
(MPa)
M1 15.3–15.5 5.10
M2 15.6–15.8 1.24
M3 21.3–21.5 5.00
M4 23.7–24.0 3.39
M5 24.1–24.3 4.17
M6 26.2–26.4 0.63
M7 31.6–31.8 0.70
M8 34.3–34.5 3.14
addition, the crack of pile end caused by pile driving and the NPT
through the crack is shown in Fig. 11.
The findings obtained as a result of the quantitative analysis in Fig. 9
are presented below:
(1) The strength of mudstone within 2d (25 mm range) around the
pile was reduced by the driving process (this phenomenon can be
clearly observed in Fig. 10). In the 60 mm penetration cross-
section of M6, the UCS within 2.5 mm–20 mm around the pile
were reduced by 0%, 5.9%, 12.5%, 14.3%, 33.3%, 25%, 0% at
every 2.5 mm interval, respectively, and the strength at 2.5 mm
around the pile was noted as 64.7% lower than that at 20 mm
around the pile. Similarly, the mudstone within 2.5 mm–25 mm
around the pile decreases in strength with every 2.5 mm in the 90
mm penetration cross-section of M6, and the variation is − 5.9%,
− 12.5%, 0%, − 7.1%, − 7.7%, − 33.3%, and − 12.5% respectively,
and the strength at 2.5 mm around the pile was 58.8% lower than
that at 20 mm around the pile. The UCS within 2.5 mm–20 mm
around the pile in the 60 mm penetration cross-section of M7
declined by 13.8%, 0%, 4%, 8.3%, 9.1%, 25%, and 33.3% at each
2.5 mm interval, respectively. The strength at 2.5 mm around the
pile was 65.5% lower than that at 20 mm around the pile.
(2) Due to pile driving, the strength of the mudstone at the pile end
increased by 11.1% compared with the 2d position around the
pile in the same cross-section and by an average of 194.5%
compared with the same position in the cross-section above the
pile end. As shown in Fig. 9(b) and (c), the cross-sectional UCS
curves of pile ends and 3 mm below the pile ends were higher
than those of the cross-sections above the pile ends. This indi­
cated that the mudstone UCS at the pile ends increases due to pile
driving. The UCS within 2.5 mm–12.5 mm (approximately 1d) of
the pile grows by 6.7%, 6.3%, 5.9%, and 11.1% at each 2.5 mm
interval in the cross-section at the pile end of M6. However, the
UCS varied sporadically in the 12.5 mm–22.5 mm range sur­
rounding the pile. The UCS was 11.1% greater at 2.5 mm around
the pile than at 25.0 mm around the pile. In this cross-section, the
UCS at 2.5 mm around the pile was 11.1% larger than that at 25.0
mm around the pile, 171.4% higher than that at the same position
in the cross-section of 90 mm penetration, 216.7% higher than
that at the same position in the cross-section of 60 mm penetra­
tion, and also 194.5% higher than that at the same position of the
pile body on average. The UCS at 2.5 mm around the pile in the 3
mm cross-section under the pile end was the same as that at 25.0
mm around the pile and 235% higher than that at the same po­
sition in the cross-section at 60 mm penetration. This was
consistent with the finding that the field pile end mudstone was
only slightly damaged during the uniaxial compression test.
(3) Cracks were formed near the pile end due to pile driving, and the
UCS regularity of the mudstone near the pile end is poor. In the
cross-section of M6, the UCS of 2.5 mm–12.5 mm (approximately
1d) around the pile grows every 2.5 mm, while the UCS in the
range of 12.5 mm–22.5 mm around the pile changed poor regu­
larity. The UCS changed irregularly on the cross-section 3 mm
J. Yin et al.
Fig. 7. Position of needle penetration test (unit: mm): (a) Measuring point above pile end; (b) Measuring point below pile end.
Fig. 8. Photos of test: (a) Cross section obtained; (b) Needle penetration test.
below the pile end of M7, and the changes of UCS every 5 mm
within 25.0 mm around the pile were − 2.9%, − 15.8%, +15.2%,
− 15.8%, and +9.4%, respectively. As shown in Fig. 11, the crack
was detected near the pile end after the longitudinal section was
obtained by cutting the sample, and the cross-section near the
pile end passed through the cracks during the NPT, resulting in
poor regularity of strength near the pile end.
In summary, the mudstone strength within 2d around the pile is
damaged to different degrees by pile driving, while slightly at the pile
end. It can be seen that the mudstone within about 2d around the pile
was damaged to different degrees through the analysis of the test results
of M6 and M7, and the strength was diminished by poor regularity of
mudstone at the pile end. Subsequently, all NPT test data must be
analyzed to elucidate the dynamic damage characteristics of mudstone
around the pile by pile driving.
3. Analysis of dynamic damage characteristics of mudstone
around the pile
All of the NPT data from M1- M8 were normalized and fitted to
examine the mechanical properties of the mudstone surrounding the pile
and further define the damage gradient of the mudstone surrounding the
pile. A variety of models were chosen for fitting to identify the best
5
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 167 (2023) 107789
fitting model, the fitting results were quantitatively examined, as shown
in Table 2. Based on the previous research [30], RCS is the weighted
chi-square test coefficient, and the closer the number is to zero, the
better the fit. R2 is the coefficient of determination of correction, and a
value near 1 implies a reasonable degree of fit. RSS is the sum of residual
squares, and a lower value suggests greater consistency. AIC is an Akaike
information criterion based on the principle of maximum entropy, and
the smaller the value, the higher the fitting degree [31]. According to the
results of the logistic model fitting, RCS was 0.00737, R2 was 0.90061,
RSS was 0.37571, AIC was 48.15842, and all of the determination co­
efficients were the best, as shown in Table 2. As a result, Logistic was
selected as the fitting model.
3.1. Damaged strength characteristics
The fitted intensity curve equation is shown in Eq. (2):
/
0.76151
UCSA UCSB = 1.01181 − ( )2.73104 (2)
s/d
1 + 0.76958
The UCSA and UCSB are the strength of mudstone after driving and
before driving, respectively, and the ratio of the two is the Y-axis. S is the
distance from the measuring point to the pile, d is the diameter of the
model pile, and the ratio of the two is the X-axis. The undisturbed
strength line is also displayed in Fig. 12.
The strength of the mudstone around the pile was damaged after
piling, as shown in Fig. 12, and there were different damage gradients in
the s/d = 0–2 range (within the range of 2d around the pile). When
compared to the strength of the undisturbed line, the OA section (s/d =
0–0.5), AB section (s/d = 0.5–1.0), BC section (s/d = 1.0–1.5), CD sec­
tion (s/d = 1.5–2.0) of the mudstone intensity mean was lower by an
average of 66%, 40.5%, 17%, 7%, respectively. This showed that the
mudstone damage gradients around the pile are 66%, 40.5%, 17%, and
7% in 0–0.5d, 0.5d–1.0d, 1.0d–1.5d, and 1.5d–2.0d, respectively. After D
point (s/d > 2), UCSA/UCSB greater than 0.96 was near to the undis­
turbed strength, and the mudstone damage induced by driving greater
than 2d around the pile could be ignored.
3.2. Damaged elastic modulus characteristics
The E is critical for structural design; thus, it is important to elucidate
the dynamic damaged elastic modulus characteristics of mudstone after
pile driving. The E is calculated using Eq. (1) by NPT testing, and the
fitted elastic modulus curve is shown in Eq. (3):
J. Yin et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 167 (2023) 107789

Fig. 10. Stereogram (unit: MPa): (a) 60 mm penetration of M6; (b) 60 mm

penetration of M7.

Fig. 11. Crack: (a) Longitudinal section pile end; (b) The needle penetrates
Fig. 9. Needle penetration test results of M6 and M7: (a) Location of cross-
through the crack.
section; (b) Test results of M6; (c) Test results of M7.

6
J. Yin et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 167 (2023) 107789

Table 2 pile after driving is greater than the strength when the E is in the range of
Optimal model selection. s/d = 0–2. The OA section (s/d = 0–0.5), AB section (s/d = 0.5–1.0), BC
Fitted model RCS R2 RSS AIC section (s/d = 1.0–1.5), CD section (s/d = 1.5–2.0) of mudstone average
was lower 80.5%, 54.5%, 26.5%, and 11%, respectively, as compared to
Allometric 0.00884 0.87365 0.46877 64.32963
Boltzmann 0.00790 0.88720 0.40269 51.97264 the undisturbed elastic modulus line. Similarly, in the s/d > 2 range, the
ExpEec 0.00841 0.87991 0.42872 55.41768 effect of driving on the E could be ignored.
Gauss 0.00786 0.88764 0.40111 51.75642
Logistic 0.00737 0.90061 0.37571 48.15842
4. Evaluation method of pile bearing capacity considering
Poisson 0.04699 0.32869 2.49057 156.18813
Sine 0.00829 0.88156 0.42284 54.65812
mudstone damage zones
Voigt 0.00846 0.87912 0.42310 52.69193
4.1. Reduction factors of the damage zones

According to the damage characteristics of the mudstone around the

pile, the mudstone within 2d around the pile was divided into a damage
zone every 0.5d. Four different damage zones were defined, namely I, II,
III, and IV, as shown in Fig. 14. The reduction factors (RF) were given for
each of the four damage zones and the undisturbed mechanical pa­
rameters obtained from geological research in the damage zone were
lowered, as shown in Table 3. This method (with RF) can be employed in
pile structure design, bearing capacity assessment, and numerical
simulation. RFUCS is the uniaxial compression strength reduction factor,
while RFE is the elastic modulus reduction factor. It should be clarified
that the RFUCS and RFE of damage areas II, III, and IV were calculated
using the average damage gradient of strength and elastic modulus.
However, the mudstone in damage zone I of 0–0.5d around the pile was
seriously damaged, and cracks were produced, and in order to increase
the safety reserve, the reduction factor was determined from the
maximum damage degree in the zone.

4.2. Verification of the method (with RF)

To validate the viability of the calculation method suggested in this

Fig. 12. Strength fitted result.

/
0.9555
EA EB = 1.058 − ( )2.449 (3)
s/d
1+ 0.90427

The elastic modulus of mudstone after and before driving is repre­

sented by EA and EB, respectively, and the Y-axis is the ratio of the two.
S/d for the X-axis and undisturbed E line is given for comparison, as
shown in Fig. 13.
Fig. 13 shows that the damage gradient of mudstone surrounding the

Fig. 13. Elastic modulus fitted result. Fig. 14. Damage zone division.

7
J. Yin et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 167 (2023) 107789

Table 3 from the field-measured curve. When loading to 4500 kN, the settle­
Reduction factor of each damage zone. ments of P1, P2, P3, method 1, and method 2 were 13.82 mm, 12.08
Damage zone RFUCS RFE mm, 15.84 mm, 14.08 mm, and 6.47 mm, respectively. The bearing
capacity of method 2 was obviously higher than the field-measured
I 0.250 0.110
II 0.595 0.455 bearing capacity. When the settlement was 6.47 mm, the correspond­
III 0.830 0.735 ing bearing capacities of P1, P2, P3, method 1, and method 2 were 2700
IV 0.930 0.890 kN, 2700 kN, 3150 kN, 3150 kN, and 4500 kN, respectively. Method 2
has a bearing capacity that was 66.7% greater than P1 and P2 and 42.8%
greater than P3 and Method 1. With a settlement of 6.47 mm, the
research, the static load test numerical simulation of the driven pile was
average bearing capacity of the field test piles (P1, P2, P3) was 2850 kN.
performed using this method and the conventional method, and the
The bearing capacity of method 1 was 10.5% higher than that of 2850
results are compared to the field test results. The conventional method
kN, and that of method 2 was 57.9% higher than that of 2850 kN.
(without RF) does not consider the damage zone of mudstone around the
Method 2 overestimated the bearing capacity of the pile, corresponding
pile after driving, and the undisturbed mechanical parameters (obtained
to the engineering phenomenon that the bearing capacity of the driven
from the geological investigation) of mudstone before damage are used
pile was lower than the design value.
in the design calculation. The axisymmetric calculation model was
As a result, the numerical simulation results confirmed the veracity
generated using ABAQUS, and the pile size was consistent with the field
of the pile driving model test findings as well as the viability of the
test pile. The diameter of the pile was set to 500 mm, while the length of
proposed strategy. The method proposed in this paper has significant
the pile was set at 14 m. For the pile, the linear elastic constitutive model
accuracy and can effectively solve the problem that the bearing capacity
was employed, and the elastic modulus was set to 42 GPa. To meet the
of the driving pile in the mudstone bearing layer is lower than the design
boundary effect of the model, the foundation soil was set as a cylinder
value. It provides a new perspective for structure design, bearing ca­
with a diameter of 16 m and a depth of 26 m. The Mor-Coulomb elastic-
pacity calculation method, and numerical simulation of the driven pile.
plastic constitutive model was adopted for the foundation soil. The
tangential direction of the pile-soil interface is defined as the Coulomb
5. Conclusion
shear model, the normal direction is defined as the hard contact, and
only normal hard contact is set at the pile end. The friction coefficient μps
This study has conducted uniaxial compression test, pile driving
of the pile-soil contact surface is given by Randolph [32] in Eq. (4):
model test, and NPT test on the mudstone samples before and after
( )
sin φ⋅cos φ driving to investigate the influence of dynamic driving loads on the
ψ = tan− 1 (4-a)
2
1 + sin φ mudstone around the pile. As part of the study, an evaluation method for
the bearing capacity of driven piles considering mudstone damaged
μps = tan ψ (4-b) zones is proposed. In addition, numerical simulation of the static load
test is carried out. Based on the results, the following conclusions are
where φ is the internal friction angle of the soil, and ψ is the friction drawn:
angle of the pile-soil interface.
The undisturbed mechanical parameters of each soil layer are (1) The pile driving caused damage to the mudstone within 0.69 m of
demonstrated in Table 4, where γ is the unit weight of soil, E is the elastic the field test pile. The mudstone’s strength and elastic modulus
modulus, μ is Poisson’s ratio, and c is the cohesion. Two methods are fell by 28.2% and 41.40%, respectively, on average; however, the
used to carry out numerical simulations. Method 1 (With RF): The mudstone at the pile end is minimally damaged.
method considering the damage zones proposed in this paper was (2) The range of mudstone damaged by pile driving was 2d, and the
adopted to reduce the mechanical parameters of mudstone in the four damage degree was different. The mudstone’s strength at the pile
damage zones according to Table 3, and the rest of the mudstone and soil end increased slightly Poor regularity appears near the pile end.
layer were set according to the values in Table 4. Method 2 (Without In addition, structural cracks are produced due to pile driving.
RF): Mechanical parameters of each soil layer were set based on Table 4. (3) After pile driving, the mudstone’s strength within 0~2d around
Fig. 15 depicts the ground stress balance. The loading procedure is the pile every 0.5d reduced by 66%, 40.5%, 17%, and 7%,
perfectly compatible with the field pile’s static load tests (P1, P2, P3). To respectively, and elastic modulus decreased by 80.5%, 54.5%,
compare findings intuitively, the highest loading value of the pile top in 26.5%, and 11%, correspondingly.
the static load test in this numerical simulation is similarly 4500 kN, (4) The reduction factors of mudstone’s undisturbed mechanical
which is divided into ten stages of loading, each of which is 450 kN. The parameters in four damage zones were determined. An evalua­
result is shown in Fig. 16. tion method of the bearing capacity of mudstone-driven piles
As can be seen from Fig. 16, the resulting curve of method 1 (With considering damage zones is proposed.
RF) was greatly consistent with the field-measured curve. By contrast, (5) The bearing capacity calculated by the proposed method was in
the resulting curve of method 2 (Without RF) was significantly different good agreement with the field test results, with a difference of
10.5%. The conventional method overestimated the bearing ca­
pacity of the pile, and the calculated value was 57.9% higher than
Table 4 that of the field pile tested. It confirmed the veracity of the pile
Mechanical parameters. driving model test findings as well as the viability of the proposed
Soil name γ (kN/ E μ c φ (◦ ) ψ strategy. Thanks to this method can effectively solve the problem
m3) (MPa) (kPa) that the bearing capacity of the driving pile in the mudstone
Plain fill 18 0.01 20 bearing layer is lower than the design value.
Silty clay 1 19.3 2.73 0.35 22.2 10.2 0.35 (6) Although the difficulty of preparation of the model foundation
Silty clay 2 19.7 2.77 0.33 27.7 12.9 0.35 from mudstone the model test was based on conventional sam­
Silty mudstone completely 20 10 0.2 47.9 17.4 0.4
weathered zone
pling techniques, and drilled mudstone’s size limited the ratio of
Silty mudstone strongly 23 25 0.23 100 40 0.4 similitude and the sensor’s installation in the model test. There­
weathered zone fore, for improving the sampling technology, obtaining large-size
Silty mudstone moderately 24 35 0.2 250 50 0.6 undisturbed mudstone, and setting up sensors to carry out large-
weathered zone

8
J. Yin et al.
Fig. 15. Geostress balance: (a) Vertical stress; (b) Vertical displacement.
Fig. 16. Static load test results of numerical simulation and field piles.
scale model tests and pile group tests, further detailed research is
needed.
Author statement
Writing - original draft: Jichao Yin; Formal analysis: Xiaoyu Bai;
Writing - review & editing: Nan Yan; Investigation: Songkui Sang;
Writing - review & editing: Lin Cui; Data curation: Junwei Liu;
Conceptualization: Mingyi Zhang.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
The authors do not have permission to share data.
Acknowledgment
This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foun­
dation of China (Grant no. 51708316), the Key Program of Natural
9
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 167 (2023) 107789
Science Foundation of Shandong Province(Grant No. ZR2020KE009),
the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation Funding (2018M632641),
Shandong Provincial Post-doctoral Innovation Project(Grant No.
201903043).
References
[1] Du J, Cai J, Long S, et al. The control of diagenesis and mineral assemblages on
brittleness of mudstones. Front[J]. N. Adv. Chall. in Shale. Oil Explor. 2022;9:
758046.
[2] Zhang CL, Wieczorek K, Xie ML. Swelling experiments on mudstones. J Rock Mech
Geotech Eng 2010;2(1):44–51. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1235.2010.00044.
[3] Vergara MR, Triantafyllidis T. Influence of water content on the mechanical
properties of an argillaceous swelling rock. Rock Mech Rock Eng 2016;49(7):
2555–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-016-0938-8.
[4] Wong LNY, Maruvanchery V, Liu G. Water effects on rock strength and stiffness
degradation. Acta Geotechnica 2016;11(4):713–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11440-015-0407-7.
[5] Zhang L, Mao X, Liu R, et al. The mechanical properties of mudstone at high
temperatures: an experimental study. Rock Mech Rock Eng 2014;47(4):1479–84.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-013-0435-2.
[6] Liu R, Mao X, Zhang L, et al. Thermal properties of mudstone at high temperature.
Int J GeoMech 2014;14(5):04014023. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-
5622.0000308.
[7] Zhou R, Cheng H, Cai H, et al. Dynamic characteristics and damage constitutive
model of mudstone under impact loading. Materials 2022;15(3):1128. https://doi.
org/10.3390/ma15031128.
[8] Zhang LM, Wang H. Field study of construction effects in jacked and driven steel H-
piles. Geotechnique 2009;59(1):63–9. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2008.T.029.
[9] Duan N, Cheng YP, Liu JW. DEM analysis of pile installation effect: comparing a
bored and a driven pile. Granul Matter 2018;20(3):1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10035-018-0805-2.
[10] Lee W, Kim D, Salgado R, Zaheer M. Setup of driven piles in layered soil. Soils
Found 2010;50(5):585–98. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.50.585.
[11] Smith EAL. Pile-driving analysis by the wave equation. J Soil Mech Found Div
1960;86(4):35–61. https://doi.org/10.1061/JSFEAQ.0000281.
[12] Ekanayake SD, Liyanapathirana DS, Leo CJ. Influence zone around a closed-ended
pile during vibratory driving. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2013;53:26–36. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2013.06.005.
[13] Grizi A, Athanasopoulos-Zekkos A, Woods RD. Ground vibration measurements
near impact pile driving. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2016;142(8):04016035.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001499.
[14] Zhang LM, Chu KH. Lateral movements of long-driven piles during pile driving.
J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2012;138(10):1222–36. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000707.
[15] Park D, Park D, Lee J. Analyzing load response and load sharing behavior of piled
rafts installed with driven piles in sands. Comput Geotech 2016;78:62–71. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2016.05.008.
[16] Daryaei R, Bakroon M, Aubram D, et al. Numerical evaluation of the soil behavior
during pipe-pile installation using impact and vibratory driving in sand. Soil
Dynam Earthq Eng 2020;134:106177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
soildyn.2020.106177.
[17] Zhao CY, Leng WM, Zheng GY. Calculation and analysis for the time-dependency of
settlement of the single-driven pile in double-layered soft clay. Appl Clay Sci 2013;
79:8–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2013.02.022.
[18] Tang B, Zhou B, Xie L, et al. Strength recovery model of clay during thixotropy.
Adv Civ Eng 2021:2021. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/8825107.
[19] Wang J, Zhu HH, Mei GX, et al. Field monitoring of bearing capacity efficiency of
permeable pipe pile in clayey soil: a comparative study. J]. Measurement 2021;
186:110151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2021.110151.
J. Yin et al.
[20] Cui J, Li J, Zhao G. Long-term time-dependent load-settlement characteristics of a
driven pile in clay. Comput Geotech 2019;112:41–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compgeo.2019.04.007.
[21] Long JH, Kerrigan JA, Wysockey MH. Measured time effects for axial capacity of
driven piling. Transport Res Rec 1999;1663(1):8–15. https://doi.org/10.3141/
1663-02.
[22] Meng L, Han L, Meng Q, et al. Study on characteristic and energy of argillaceous
weakly cemented rock under dynamic loading by Hopkinson bar experiment.
Energies 2020;13(12):3215. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13123215.
[23] Peckley DC, Uchimura T. Strength and deformation of soft rocks under cyclic
loading considering loading period effects. Soils Found 2009;49(1):51–62. https://
doi.org/10.3208/sandf.49.51.
[24] Huang M, Xu CS, Zhan JW, et al. Comparative study on dynamic properties of
argillaceous siltstone and its grouting-reinforced body. Geomech. Eng. 2017;13(2):
333–52. https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2017.13.2.333.
[25] Zhang XG, Yi NP. Analysis of Mudstone Properties and Engineering Pile
Foundation Failure in Nanning Basin. Rock Soil Mech 2006;27(S2):1273–6.
[26] Miao DZ, Zhang MY, Bai XY, et al. Analysis of bearing properties of rock-socketed
piles in strongly weathered mudstone foundations. J Guangxi Univ (Nat Sci Ed)
2018;43(3):1169–76. https://doi.org/10.13624/j.cnki.issn.1001-7445.2018.1169.
10
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 167 (2023) 107789
[27] He P, Liu CW, Wang C, et al. Study on the relationship between uniaxial
compression strength and elastic modulus of sedimentary rocks. J Sichuan Univ
(Eng Sci Ed) 2011;43(4):7–12. https://doi.org/10.15961/j.jsuese.2011.04.004.
[28] Ngan-Tillard DJM, Engin HK, Verwaal W, et al. Evaluation of micro-structural
damage caused by needle penetration testing. Bull Eng Geol Environ 2012;71(3):
487–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-012-0430-y.
[29] Ulusay R, Erguler ZA. Needle penetration test: evaluation of its performance and
possible uses in predicting strength of weak and soft rocks. Eng Geol 2012;149:
47–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2012.08.007.
[30] St L, Wold S. Analysis of variance (ANOVA). Chemometr Intell Lab Syst 1989;6(4):
259–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-7439(89)80095-4.
[31] Bozdogan H. Model selection and Akaike’s information criterion (AIC): The general
theory and its analytical extensions. Psychometrika 1987;52(3):345–70. https://
doi.org/10.1007/BF02294361.
[32] Randolph MF, Wroth CP. Application of the failure state in undrained simple shear
to the shaft capacity of driven piles]. Geotechnique 1981;31(1):143–57. https://
doi.org/10.1680/geot.1981.31.1.143.